USA V. ANTOINNE FEATHERSTONE, No. 11-10465 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 03 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 11-10465 D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01779-ROS v. MEMORANDUM * ANTOINNE LEE FEATHERSTONE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona William T. Hodges, District Judge, Presiding ** Submitted September 24, 2013 *** Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Antoinne Lee Featherstone appeals from the district court s judgment and challenges the 141-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable William Terrell Hodges, Senior United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). for two counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), (d); and using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Featherstone s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Featherstone the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed. Featherstone has waived his right to appeal his sentence. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss the appeal. See id. at 988. Counsel s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. DISMISSED. 2 11-10465

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.